BHANWAR LAL SHARMA Vs. ARIHANT JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant review petition and emanating from the record is that, initially, the petitioner -complainant Bhanwar Lal Sharma son of Poonam Chand Sharma(for brevity "the complainant") had filed a criminal complaint against Arihant Jain son of Suresh Kumar Jain and other respondents -accused in the trial Court, inter alia, alleging therein that one plot bearing No.113, Pocket A -1 situated in Sector 29, Rohini, Delhi, was allotted to him(complainant) by Delhi Development Authority (for short "the DDA"). On 19.12.2005, he had gone to Sector 16, Faridabad, for getting its original papers photostat, where respondent accused Arihant Jain visited there, stole his original papers and asked him to transfer the plot, in question, in his favour or to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs to him. He refused to accede to his illegal demand. The petitionercomplainant claimed that he had neither executed any document in favour of the accused nor had received any amount in lieu of consideration price of the plot, in question. The accused were stated to have forged the documents pertaining to the indicated plot. Subsequently, the complaint was sent to the police by the trial Court for investigation, where the criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.102 dated 04.03.2006, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 380, 384, 420, 406, 467 and 506 IPC, by the police of Police Station Central, Faridabad.

(2.) HAVING investigated the case, the police concluded that the allegations contained in the complaint were false and submitted the untraced report. Consequently, the complainant filed a protest -petition to object the cancellation report, which was treated as a private complaint by the trial Court.

(3.) SEQUELLY , the trial Court after taking into consideration the preliminary evidence of the complainant, dismissed the complaint and accepted the cancellation report by means of order dated 25.02.2010 (Annexure P -2 in the main petition). Not only that, the order of the trial Court was upheld by way of impugned judgment dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P -4) by the Revisional Court.